D&D 5E Why is animate dead considered inherently evil?

[Tolerable Tyrant]

I'm having a troublesome time understanding why the animate dead spell is considered evil. When I read the manual it states that the spall imbues the targeted corpse with a foul mimicry of life, implying that the soul is not a sentient being who is trapped in a decaying corpse. Rather, the spell does exactly what its title suggests, it only animates the corps. Now of course one could use the spell to create zombies that would hunt and kill humans, but by that same coin, they could create a labor force that needs no form of sustenance (other than for the spell to be recast of course). There have also been those who have said "the spell is associated with the negative realm which is evil", however when you ask someone why the negative realm is bad that will say "because it is used for necromancy", I'm sure you can see the fallacy in this argument.

However, I must take into account that I have only looked into the DnD magic system since yesterday so there are likely large gaps in my knowledge. PS(Apon further reflection I've decided that the animate dead spell doesn't fall into the school of necromancy, as life is not truly given to the corps, instead I believe this would most likely fall into the school of transmutation.) PPS(I apologize for my sloppy writing, I've decided I'm feeling too lazy to correct it.)

 

[payn]

So I obviously don't think that making zombies is completely unproblematic. It is just that among all sort of morally questionable things that happens in D&D I feel it seems weirdly inconsistent to highlight this one thing as specifically heinous. Cannibalism is neutral, killing is no problem and mind control is just fine. Consorting with devils or demons is not flagged as evil either. So if the players are allowed to make up their own mind about all of this, why not about undead creation?

And I am sensitive to the idea that the undead might be unnerving to some players in real life. But same goes for a lot of other topics that occur in the game too, and personally I would be way more worried about mind control magic than the corny pop-culture trope that is the zombie. Nor I think game's in-universe moral system is the right tool for warning about potentially upsetting topics in any case.

Furthermore, whilst flagging undead creation as evil isn't particularly worrisome, the game has long history of the writers pushing their morals to the players and it mostly is not good one. The game still contains the notion that one's morality is linked to their race and in some cases literally to the colour of their skin. So I am really not in need of moral advice from this source.

I think this is an attempt to lump evil undead into other more compelling arguments to try and shoot it down. I think if you look at it in context, a lot of the alignment of the past was to simplify game play morality. As the game evolved with game tastes, obviously unintended aspects were pointed out and removed. The undead being evil has been left mostly to the realm of mindless zombies and skeletons, etc.. You can have ghosts and other intelligent undead of different alignments. As mentioned above, the evil undead makes for a good obstacle for the PCs that needs no moral evaluation to simplify gameplay.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I too am unhappy when writers push their morals on me. I'm still upset that hack John Steinbeck devoted time to complaining about an economic sytem that physically and spirtually crushed people. I'm all like, "Just entertain me, dude."

For the record, I have never complained about writers pushing their morals on people in a work of fiction that is meant to be passively consumed. Granted, I might have complained about the morals being terrible sometimes. But the difference is that RPGs are not stories, they're tools for creating your own stories. So the true creators, i.e. the players, should be allowed to come up with their own moral answers. And of course most of the morals D&D pushed were terrible too, so there is also that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like it or not, the creators of D&D, collectively, have persistently chosen to not do that for about 50 years now. I think there are good, sound reasons for the choice they've made - I think it leads to their game being rather more accessible and interesting to the broad audience they hope to work with.

Toolbox systems do exist, but they are not great choices for entry-level products. While advanced GMs may be into doing the work to determine the details of moral frameworks before play begins, it is a lot of work, and not a suitable effort for a novice.

Not really interested in entry-level products personally. And there's no reason GMs have to make up their own settings when they don't want to, as there are plenty of existing settings, and designers to create them and include them in products, so I don't really see your point there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D has become as big as it has because it mostly conforms to those standard you don't want in the rules(my opinion obviously). They have even gone out of thier way on multiple occasions to make sure everyone know's this. Perhaps just perhaps sales are impacted by such decisions...

My thoughts don't consider popularity or sales. This is pretty much an academic debate to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and here we have the most sensible answer to the issue in game - its not about assumptions of morality - its about creating game rules where adventurers have an enemy they can wantonly obliterate and be called heroic for doing so. Undead, Fiends and Monsters are such creatures - undead are the antithesis of life, they offend the ‘natural order’ so destroying them is a good heroic deed - ergo making undead is anti-heroic and not-good (aka Evil with a capital E)

How about using the setting to determine what evil things can be destroyed with impunity, and leave the game rules out of it?

 

[Oofta]

My thoughts don't consider popularity or sales. This is pretty much an academic debate to me.

But this forum isn't dedicated to general philosophy, it's dedicated to D&D and gaming in general. So the target audience of the game, what the design goals are and how well it is received is relevant.

 

[James Gasik]

How about using the setting to determine what evil things can be destroyed with impunity, and leave the game rules out of it?

While that would be preferable, when we're talking about WotC (or really any game publisher), it's probably a good idea not to seem like you're condoning certain kinds of behavior.

My problem with the coding of "Necromancy = bad" has a lot less to do with them deciding that's the case and more with the inconsistency of all the other questionable stuff, especially with regards to fiends, brainwashing, and casual cannibalism by lizardfolk in subsequent products.

I mean, I would prefer that the game treat us like adults and not say "hey, just so you know, playing with dead bodies isn't great", but I understand the desire to try and keep the busybody "moral guardians" off your case. But if you're going to take that stance, don't abandon it once your core books are printed, lol.

OTOH, modern fantasy gamers are pretty casual about this stuff. I mean, ever since November of 2004, you could play a walking corpse in World of Warcraft with a dedicated ability to munch on dead bodies for some health and nobody seems to mind that all that much. WoW isn't D&D of course, but it's fairly D&D-adjacent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But this forum isn't dedicated to general philosophy, it's dedicated to D&D and gaming in general. So the target audience of the game, what the design goals are and how well it is received is relevant.

This is to me an academic discussion about D&D and its philosophy regarding necromancy over the game's history, and fantasy games in general. While I understand that decisions on publishing are affected by public opinion and profit, it's not really my concern personally. I just find the conversation fascinating.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While that would be preferable, when we're talking about WotC (or really any game publisher), it's probably a good idea not to seem like you're condoning certain kinds of behavior.

My problem with the coding of "Necromancy = bad" has a lot less to do with them deciding that's the case and more with the inconsistency of all the other questionable stuff, especially with regards to fiends, brainwashing, and casual cannibalism by lizardfolk in subsequent products.

I mean, I would prefer that the game treat us like adults and not say "hey, just so you know, playing with dead bodies isn't great", but I understand the desire to try and keep the busybody "moral guardians" off your case. But if you're going to take that stance, don't abandon it once your core books are printed, lol.

OTOH, modern fantasy gamers are pretty casual about this stuff. I mean, ever since November of 2004, you could play a walking corpse in World of Warcraft with a dedicated ability to munch on dead bodies for some health and nobody seems to mind that all that much. WoW isn't D&D of course, but it's fairly D&D-adjacent.

All good points. The hypocrisy is particularly interesting to me? I wonder why they draw the line there, and not somewhere else? And as time goes on and one issue or another makes the news and becomes more prominent in the cultural zeitgeist, what other activities will be labeled evil?

 

[Umbran]

Not really interested in entry-level products personally.

This thread is in the D&D forum. The question is rather focused on D&D, specifically. It would seem to me that the creators of D&D have, among their various concerns, entry into the hobby.

So, if you are asking "Why is D&D like this?" that is probably part of the answer.

And there's no reason GMs have to make up their own settings when they don't want to, as there are plenty of existing settings, and designers to create them and include them in products, so I don't really see your point there.

Yes, but then the new players would have to get a separate setting document, and absorb it, before play beings. For the Big Fish of RPGs, having a vague notion of "default setting" with some understood characteristics, is useful.

So, again, "Why is D&D like this?" - it isn't trying to be a primarily advanced play product.

I don't think it is aimed being a primarily entry-level product either, by the way. The game product is covering a wide swath of play, making for a hybrid product that has nods for several different kinds of players. It is perfect for nobody.